Posted by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications

The original architects of the Internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure.

It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband. Verizon and Google are pleased to discuss the principled compromise our companies have developed over the last year concerning the thorny issue of “network neutrality.”

1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Our joint proposal takes the form of a suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers, and is laid out here. Below we discuss the seven key elements:

First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.

Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Our proposal would create enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities. Broadband providers would also provide to application and content providers information about network management practices and any other information they need to ensure that they can reach consumers.

Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

We believe this policy framework properly empowers consumers and gives the FCC a role carefully tailored for the new world of broadband, while also allowing broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks and provide new types of online services.

Ultimately, we think this proposal provides the certainty that allows both web startups to bring their novel ideas to users, and broadband providers to invest in their networks.

Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way. But what has kept us moving forward is our mutual interest in a healthy and growing Internet that can continue to be a laboratory for innovation. As policy makers continue to formulate the rules of the road, we hope that other stakeholders will join with us in providing constructive ideas for an open Internet policy that puts consumers in charge and enhances America’s leadership in the broadband world. We stand ready to work with the Congress, the FCC and all interested parties to do just that.

---This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.---

mening that centralized agencies can shut down - or degrade access - to "unlawful" (defined by US government) content such as wikileaks, etc.

"Differentiated online services" sounds very worrisome to me. Basically it's saying, okay, there will be the public Internet, but broadband providers can produce all sorts of little private "online services" which only run on their private networks, don't use open Internet standards, use bandwidth which they wholly control, etc. What's to stop broadband providers from basically colluding to create a parallel "private" Internet which would be completely exempt from the net neutrality rules? I mean, they may in fact fail at attempting to do this, but it is a huge loophole it seems to me in this.

Secondly, I am not happy at all that this agreement says nothing about network neutrality in the wireless space. Why? Okay, maybe the restrictions ought to be somewhat different, but to say there will be nothing other than "transparency" really seems potentially very problematic.

The same goals set for wired connections should apply to mobile connections. Current mobile devices aim to bring the 'desktop experience' in a mobile device, and cell phone companies already charge insane amounts for data (especially SMS!)

Why on earth is the link to the actual document to Scribd? Which requires sign-up to even download? Google and Verizon couldn't find somewhere on their own petabytes of storage to put up a simple HTML web page with the text????

...under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."

So you're proposing allowing providers to discriminate against particular content or favor some traffic over others?

I'm just taking this quote: "...in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic" from principle 2 and assuming wireless providers - since the principles (except transparency) won't apply to them - could block and favor content.

My biggest problem with this is that it's Google+Verizon agreeing on ANYTHING to do with policy. Look what happened: Verizon practically got Google to say that wireless should not be regulated, even though Google doesn't say or mean that at all. These "agreements" look like cooperation, but they don't help and didn't help. Great intentions. Unfortunate outcomes.

Deal with the devil. Number 5 of course is the loophole. After years in the woods the new fcc seems to have plenty of good ideas about preserving net neutrality without input from two profit hungry corporations writing their own rules.

Time to go back to the very early days of Commercial Internet. Corporations consider the Internet of today their property. Do you expect better from a phone company? Really now.....Time for Internet 3.

Seems at least reasonable to me. And the wekanesses mentioned (differentiated services and wireless) would still fall under the authority of the FCC to implement neutrality if and when it is beneficial to do so. (It's a little disappointing they recommend not implementing neutrality on wireless *yet*, but somewhat understandable since the wireless bandwidth is still very limited by the wireless spectrum)

Agreed. This will create a system where the only organization that can discriminate and exercise ownership of property is the government (FCC). What makes them so adept at keeping the Internet in good harmony? They are politicians and are power-hungry. You had better believe the future under a policy like this will be things like WikiLeaks and other questionable things will be deemed against our national security a pulled. This is not a win for our First Amendment rights. The government is far from an impartial actor, and this is giving them all of the power. I don't believe in large concentrations of power.

I LOVE you guys, love the objectives in the proposal. What would we do without you? This is awesome and thank you for being the voice for the powerless :) and defending and protecting the wireless web. Yay!

If Google decides to engage in activity that disrupts what many believe to be fundamental a right of the internet-i.e., net neutrality principles-then they may be responsible for letting capitalist interests overcome social rights. This would be a congruent act by Google as a major corporation in a capitalist country. To do otherwise or to support net neutrality is not "socialism," it is a social desire. In the end, Google or any corporation or government that tries to restrict the common will fail, but Google should consider its legacy when it does ultimately fail. Google likely no longer has the wherewithal to maintain its original vision of "do no harm." It is too big, too rich, and too powerful.

This sounds like a good start. The thing with net neutrality is where to find the balance between what the people, government, service providers and content providers would like. This sounds to me a realistic starting point that works towards a more idealistic view of a world without limitations on the internet. It would be better then what exists now (as someone who is stuck on Comcast).

I was laughing over the last few weeks as various people I know asked me about the rumors going around about what Google and Verizon were up to (and the worst case conclusions that were being jumped too), and this is actually rather close to what my guess was.

I like the idea of transparency regardless of what type of data. As someone who has to deal with wireless as part of my job, I can understand why it is being asked that there would be less initial restrictions placed on it. It is still changing quite a bit, and we still have a large part of the population that is getting use to the concept of wireless internet and the resources involved in it. I would hope that at some point in the discussions that there be goals (with timetables) set to move wireless towards the suggested standards for wired.

As for 'Differentiated online services' that has been something that has been around for as long as I have been "online". Even back in the good old days, different BBSs had different offerings. Email accounts could even really be classified as this. I do hope that it would prompt innovation.

On the sixth point, that wireless should be treated differently to wireline, I strongly feel competition will ultimately decide. I imagine wireless providers will eventually become "dumb pipes" as the economies of scale proved during the nascent wireline days.

I'm quite unpleasantly surprised by the wireless exemption. I had thought that since almost all of Google's revenue comes from search advertising, that they had a real commitment to a diverse Internet based upon their business model; the more readily-accessible and diverse content there is, the more people will search for it, and the more they will click on ads. But not nailing down net neutrality for wireless flies in the face of that assumption. What could their motive be? Did they compromise on wireless in order to be able to nail down the wired Internet via a firm regulatory regime? Why would they agree to this? Any ideas out there on what motives Google would have that could trump the positive impact of an open Internet on search advertising?

The proposition of neutrality in the wireless context is practically equivalent to "anyone can use any device on any mobile network" (technical considerations such as radio frequency bands notwithstanding). This is of course is something the cell providers are highly allergic to, lock-in being a huge part of their business model.

As such, a proposition for wireless neutrality would be a nonstarter. So, better to not propose it at all than to have another proposal undermined by including it in the same document.

Put in other terms: "Mom, I want to take the car to the drag strip and have ice cream for dessert" will get you neither, whereas "Mom, I want to have ice cream for dessert" and leaving out the drag racing gets you at least one desirable outcome. :)

The max penalty should be more than $2 million for violation of the rules. You guys know that $2 million is a drop in your buckets.

Everything is good with the wired rules, but we all know wireless is the future of the internet. Apply the same rules to wireless now or you are just punting, and in a few years we will have tiered internet still.

When there is congestion there has to be some algorithm to determine whose packets get dropped. There isn't any obvious "fair" way to do this. How about: Each source (/destination?) company gets equal throughput? That could be fair. The way to build a fair Internet that innovates is to have per packet (and/or byte) charging on each transit network, paid by either source or destination or some combination. Endpoints need to specify routes and need to ensure that intermediate networks have credit for packets matching the spec. For individuals and smaller organizations ISPs would handle this for customers. This is tough but doable. (Transit networks might charge based on sampled rather than all traffic).

I see so you want us to trade and unregulated wireless future, for a semi-regulated wired present, with prioritized traffic that kinda, sorta, isn't prioritized? No thanks, and I don't want your bloody bridge either!

Er, Item #6 on your list is buried in the middle of all the fine print for a reason. It's the buried lead - wireless broadband, the likely future of the entire internet, escapes virtually all of your proposed safeguards around openness and nondiscrimination of content.

This is an appalling, anti-consumer stance, particularly coming from a company that claims to Do No Evil.

Not only are you attacking the future of network neutrality, you're lying about it. So that's two Evils. Shame.

Google is trying to sell the public out on wireless! The money and the future is in wireless , who needs wired when you can have fast unlimited internet and not be limited by a cord!!Net neutrality is not an issue where bandwidth is not limited (wired) but when you are having bandwidth problems (wireless) then you need tiered systems to throttle usage. This will stifle the internet instead of forcing ISP to invest heavily in infrastructure you are throttling the system. Wow this pisses me off, Google have grown up and become Yahoo ,selling us out just like Yahoo did in China. This will slow the growth of technology, make more profits for ISP and piss off lots of regular citizens!!! I hope that the FCC kicks this ball a 100 yards and doesn't agree. We need unlimited and un tiered data. Of course Verizon will soon be charging for Skype usage. We citizens need to band together to fight this greedy move. Lets see if Google will publish my comments!

What morons or automated comment bots are posting anything positive about this proposal. This is a HUGE STEP BACKWARDS! You really want the future to be pay to play/use? That is what you are looking at.

Google and Verizon are interested in nothing more than making obscene amounts of money. They do not want to protect the consumer. Google and Verizon want to take something we have spent years perfecting and make it their street corner whore.

I'm done with Google and Verizon.

Where is the "Delete Account" button in Google? I guess I'll have to BING for it.

For all of those comments stating Google is selling out by not applying the same regulation to wireless as to wired, your arguments make little sense. If this net neutrality regulation is such a great idea, then why wouldn't Google also want it applied to wireless? Maybe they're trying to simply do damage control themselves instead of waiting for other companies to mess it up against Google's interests.

I believe that Google's reasoning to not regulate wireless is an initial proposal so as to not allow government bureaucracies to hinder the growth potential of the wireless industry. After all, at the end of the day, nobody is better at stifling innovation and growth than the government.

@Ryan: I completely agree with you. There is some magic thinking by those who support this type of thing that the government is some impartial, completely ethical, moral creature. It's certainly a creature, but it's just as greedy and power hungry as the next thing. In fact, it's worse since it has absolute power in the U.S. At least companies can die if they do bad things, governments never die except with revolution.

There's so much competition in the wireless space? Then how come the pricing and service choices still look so much like those that oligopolists would offer?

The differentiated-services thing is also a disaster waiting to happen -- it essentially encourages the big bandwidth providers to neglect their "plain old internet" and put all their investment into the unregulated side. (Those of you with more historical knowledge than a skink may recall exactly this game being played by telephone companies when they lobbied to have pretty much everything they did classified as "information services" and hence not subject to common-carrier rules.

I am relieved to hear that this is the point of the Verizon and Google discussions. One question though, why are so-called "additional,differentiated online services" exempt? We don't know what future online communiques will contain or what their nature might be. It doesn't make sense to exempt these.

I don't buy the argument that wireless carriers should be exempt because of (insert meaningless filler words here). Net neutrality is net NEUTRALITY - as in without regard to what is going through the pipes OR what the pipes are made of.

If network usage truly is the issue (as AT&T continues to suggest), then price wireless data access according to supply/demand principles.

Right now it's like deciding gold is worth $5 per ton, and then regulating who buys gold and how much because it is scarce. If wireless data is so scarce and so many people want it, let the market set the price.

I have to agree with averagejoe $2 million is a drop in the bucket. We've seen corporations make the gamble that the fine imposed is justified if the profits outweigh the penalty and therefor constantly abuse the system. I propose the fine be bumped up to $50 million, and up to $100 million for repeat offenses. thereby ensuring that nobody circumvents the rules for the sake of a quick buck.

A thought about point # 6:Without massive investment in high-bandwidth wireless technologies for mobile platforms, it's impractical to want net neutrality on mobile wireless computing platforms. Imagine a wireless world where users were allowed to stream anything they wanted, even if the extra bandwidth prevented one person from making a critical phone call during an emergency. The additional functionality of web on a mobile device via a phone network cannot supersede basic critical functions that have become staples of life for the broad majority of consumers.

From a cynical point of view, Google doesn't want an ISP blocking its advertising, no matter how obnoxious consumers may find advertising in 10 years. A shift in the advertising paradigms of todays consumers cannot come too soon: all of the billions spent on it simply come back as excess cost on basic items to the consumer. Car insurance is one such product.

From another cynical point of view, Point 5 brings up an interesting issue of exclusivity among ISP's. Point 5 pretty much encourages a (for example) Hulu-Verizon alliance in order to stream Hulu content to Verizon's customers exclusively. Or perhaps more important, certain healthcare providers would offer discounts to Verizon customers since Verizon has some exclusivity agreement with the maker of XYZ health gadget. That's about as subtley monopolistic as a company can get these days.

---This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.---

mening that centralized agencies can shut down - or degrade access - to "unlawful" (defined by US government) content such as wikileaks, etc.

I highly encourage most of you to read the whole blog post in length before transferring your anger from w/e website brought you here. Mainly, read the 6th point. It says wireless is just so new, and because of its fast evolving nature they chose not to implement wired rules "NOW," not never, not "haha we found a way destroy the internet!!!!" In my opinion, it would be like trying to argue the rights of americans in outer space. The only thing they could guarantee is transparency. So again, please read the post before getting upset, or even just the sixth point.

No. Google, you have to step up and push net-neutrality as its full, unaltered concept. We WILL lose ground in the legislative process. Why give any to them now? Push for ideal so that the laws will reflect as much of it as possible!

The internet is already split into have and have-not content with most of the have-nots outside the US.

I constantly read websites directing me to pages (mostly youtube) that tells me that I'm not permitted to view outside of the US.

The cloud based software is mostly free and soon even your OS will be free leaving you the money you would have otherwise spent to spend on online services that matter to you whilst still being able to freely run software on your PC.

‎"under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless" So wireless, the clear future of all information, is not subject to any of your suggested policies? What's to prevent corporate ISPs (who happen to also be content providers) from pricing consumers out of traditional "net neutral" broadband packages and migrating them to their discounted "Data Freedom" wireless package?

If this proposal is ever adopted, the government should have tiered charges for use of the public airwaves. If a carrier is net neutral they get a lower rate but if a carrier selectively throttles content, then they would pay a very much higher rate.

For Google or Verizon or any other corporation to make principals about this is against net neutrality. Google has been sucking up every start up company that they feel will expand the empire they have created. This is the very practice that has helped cause the downward spiral of the economy. They suck up anything that might create new employers and jobs like the Blob sucked up anything in its path. It also seems that they have stored private wireless network info that they sucked up when taking feed pictures for Google Earth. Why? Verizon gets control of the wireless internet through the double speaking loophole in the principals? WTH? I do not see how this is neutral at all. Come on Google do you not send your new employees to Neuroempathy class? How about using some of the worldly empathy to really get a better grip on this. Neutral means neutral and that goes for wired,wireless, and fiber optic and whatever else content will be transmitted by. No cherry picking allowed!

Google, do you really think we are fools? What about net neutrality on wireless? And who exactly decides what is lawful or unlawful online? This proposal is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. I don't know how you even have the temerity temerity to propose such a flawed and greedy proposal.

So, two companies, who of course are working from snow-white motives -- Google is "open", they tell us over and over -- are trying to legislate with power and money. That's evil, Google, and you are definitely losing your way.

Wireless is the same thing as wired. No difference. Data is data is data.

Some people, particularly fandroids, seem to adore Google as "open" and "free." It's true, they have been that way, but you can sense that beginning to change when their own bottom line starts getting fat and lazy. Then, why not cut a deal with the Chinese? Why not cut a deal with Verizon to favor Android phones? They're just another giant corporation with the interests of their own bottom line. That's why this private rule-making sucks so hard. It is OUR bandwidth. We pay, and you to sell it to us. Then it's OURS.

I agree: nationalize bandwidth! Cell phone operators should be required to be common carriers, period. Take my message and deliver it. Without a warrant, get your fat nose out of my business. I'll decide which phone I want. Get out of our hair and just transmit. Innovation? Ha! Like the Wall Street "innovation" in mortgages and so on?

It does sound a little evil, big G. The "compromise" seems to be "well, the rules only apply to the *wired* internet. If the internet is wireless, then the big V can do whatever. Oh, and if the "online services" are "new" then they can do whatever they want too.

Sounds to me like "we won't mess up what is now, but in the future, we can do whatever we feel like". Very disappointing.

I don't really see what you were compromising about; you are all pious about "open" but don't ever give an argument for being somewhat closed. I guess implied is "Verizon wants closed" or "Google wants closed" or both.

Isn't it incredible that many people that commented here didn't really understand what was written in the document?

Here is the explanation: this document was written to trick people into thinking Google is awesome for protecting the Internet, but the catch is at the end: we will protect everything, EXCEPT for wireless Internet.

The allegations of hypocrisy arise mostly from their championing of non-discrimination and transparency, while simultaneously including the caveat of ‘additional online services’: “A broadband provider could offer additional services that could include traffic prioritization.”

They claim the proposal includes safeguards to ensure such services are distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband service, and not designed to circumvent the rules. But what’s to keep the ISPs from reducing speeds for regular broadband plans and offer faster service for video/gaming at higher prices?

Apart from that, there’s the one giant hilarious finger to Comcast: “because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space.”

So, more power (and case-by-case enforcement work) for FCC and less to other regulators. For now, this policy *proposal* is just that: (a series of) pipe dreams.

The only reason that you want a "principled agreement" with Verizon on a structure for the entire Internet is to make sure that your own corporate self-interest is protected. You even admit that it will slow the development of the Internet because you exclude the more rapidly-developing mobile Internet from your agreement. The massive gray areas in this statement will require regulation and litigation to resolve, which will ultimately favor the big players -- I think this is basically the opposite of what made the Internet great.

"I believe that Google's reasoning to not regulate wireless is an initial proposal so as to not allow government bureaucracies to hinder the growth potential of the wireless industry."

Now, why exactly would you believe that? We've got the worst wireless networks in the world, because each has been allowed to "innovate" to the point where they're basically subsidizing handsets to entice us into long slavery in one or the other incompatible networks. It's like the early days of the railroad, where multiple gauges made the system slow and inefficient. Only when the government imposed a single gauge, and made laws for the hauling of common traffic, was the continental railroad system born.

How about GSM for all? One standard for LTE or 4G? Then require whichever tower is closest to pick up the signal and pass it on to the owner's chosen company -- and charge the company with the fewest towers, to force them to build more towers?

Oh, I know, we have the BEST SYSTEM in the WORLD, except for all the other places where the governments had the balls to tell their wireless companies what the deal was.

It's terribly clear why Google wants this: they want special treatment for their Google phones. See, it was great when all Google did was find things for us. Then gmail and a lot of their web apps were good, and you didn't mind the ads for the service you were getting.

Tell me they'll make LESS money on wireless if they set things up for themselves this way, and I might believe you.

I really wish people would actually read this (and make sure they actually understand...) before commenting.

Specifically, in point five, it's like people got bored halfway through and just skipped : "Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services."

And then on six. Yeah, it sucks they didn't include wireless (yet) but they did have this line which people seem to forget: "In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers."

Come on guys! Reading comprehension!

Kent Brockman:Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

"The Google-Verizon pact isn't just as bad as we feared — it's much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled.

"They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they'll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks.

"It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast..."

There's also this statement: "Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules."

This is the beginning of a tiered system, that like cable, seeks to offer so called "extra services" that will be unavailable to those just surfing the net.

this is fukcing ridiculous. everyone posting here that believes their blog or their favorite websites will continue to be the same AND champions this move by google needs to re-read that public statement and then read this. http://tiny.cc/qrdff

this is a violation of our first amendment right to free speech and freedom of assembly. fight this for your lives, bloggers.

Typical sickening Orwellian doublespeak from corporate giants. Leave out wireless? This is the same nonsense that the telecom corporations did to enable them to skirt the wireline regulations (by classifying their internet activities as "information delivery" rather than telecommunications)...which lead to unfair market practices such as locking devices to certain networks.

Don't be fooled by all the fluffy talk about Googizon supporting net neutrality on legacy broadband networks...THIS IS A MONEY GRAB FOR THE WIRELESS FUTURE OF THE INTERNET.

In other words, Google is saying that Verizon and other wireless providers should operate without being subject to net neutrality but Comcast and the other wired ones should be subject to it. I guess their "do no evil" thing went right out the door the moment they realized they could make money off us after we staring buying Android phones in earnest. We caught them in a huge lie and now they are trying to frame this as if they are keeping to their oft trumpeted credo. What they are suggesting is not net neutrality. It sounds like a complete 180 from what they have been advocating. This is very unfortunate - for Google, Verizon and anyone else that decides to join them on this, that is.

We're the ones that helped make them who they are. They owe us a satisfactory explanation regarding their policy shift immediately. If Google is not forthcoming with one or if they refuse to back net neutrality regardless of the transmission medium then we should start a multi-pronged protest. Abandon as many of their services as possible and blacklist their ad servers - which would disable their ability to display ads on your computer - until they realize the error of their ways.

This is worse than a fraud. It's a total landgrab to take the internet and put it in the hands of a few companies, who can reduce bandwidth for content they disagree with (like this message) to 110 baud speeds again, while claiming ownership of the bandwidth that actually belongs to the public.

That Google is engaged in this doubletalk simply proves that it is now as honest as the government in 1984.

This is why countries like Japan are light years ahead of us on wireless broadband.

Guess what, morons: transmitters should never be allowed to discriminate against the content they're trafficking. It doesn't matter if you're doing it over a wire, over the air or through quantum entangled particles: YOU'RE STILL A TRANSMITTER and you're not allowed to discriminate the content that you're trafficking.

Instead of forcing companies like Comcast and Verizon to focus on making their products competitive by increasing the speed and accessibility of their services, you allow them to set up switches to block and slow down content. So while the US gets left in the dust on wired & wireless broadband speeds, these fat cats sit on their butts making money off of DOING FREAKING NOTHING.

From Twitter last week: "We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."

So Google lied last week, and now wants me to believe what it said above?

I guess Evil doesn't include making extra billions. From Verizon, this is expected. From Google, I should have expected it I suppose after the fold in China.

Wall Street didn't work absent regulation leading the the current economy. We've seen what happened when BP called the shots on safety. Anyone really think that Google and Verizon have our, versus their stock holders's, interests at heart?

People who say this is good do not understand what is going on, "prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content,application,"Someone did an illegal file transfer there goes bit torrent and access to any site involved. Oh insert used a copyrighted video ban access have fun,

Wolf in sheep's clothing Google - come on. An "open Internet" does not mean the creation of a second closed network. It's a straw man argument. You would have the Internet end up bifurcated like broadcast television is today? A model where "free broadcast television" is available - but only if you can get the signal, and only if you want to watch less than a hand full of channels providing irrelevant content. If you want the full world of entertainment, cough up for cable television - and pay the only monopoly offering it in your particular location whatever they feel like charging you.

This is just another framework for corporations to screw the population - don't fall for it people.

This is a corporate take over of the net. By bifurcating the access to the highest bidder vs the public interest you have screwed all of us who have supported your "DO NO EVIL" in the past. This is merely a ploy for you and Verizon to muscle out the less financially endowed competition.

I was raised on the Internet, and am far from blind: I have seen the contradiction in your action and your words. You talk of net-neutrality, yet pose laws that would let allow ISP's to prioritize "private networks" over the internet. You attempt to 'appease the people' by offering us this quick fix, when you leave the future grey and open to interpretation (Wireless is thier projected goal, with Verizon offering 'wireless network cards' and google selling 'Chrome Web-books'). What ever happened to secure by design? What ever happened to doing it right from the very begining? Either way, I doubt I will pursuade you; Just understand, your actions will define you for all history, not what you say or claim in your advertising. The truth will come out with time, so make the right decision now or let history forever show the repercussions of your actions.

So you lied about not being in talks with VZ, and your proposal to carve wireless, where the growth is in connectivity, out of net neutrality principles basically means that you want the parts of the Internet that are growing most rapidly to be up for corporate bid.

Shame on you Google. I don't know why, but I expected better from you.

This is terrible. Let me translate this: We want an open internet except when it is more profitable not to have an open internet. How exactly is wireless access different than wired? What is "differentiated online services" and why should data packets for those services get treated differently? There are so many loopholes in this policy that it is rendered useless. All data packets, regardless of source or destination, should be treated equally. How hard is it to grasp that concept? It has worked well so far.

3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service,

The phrase "facilitate theft of service," is so vague that it could be interpreted as just being in competition with the carrier's own provided services e.g. voice,SMS, video etc.

This statement puts the Internet in the USA back into the pre-dialup days before the split up of AT&T, where the carrier could effectively deny access to any modem because it could "harm the network" or just compete with its existing services.

Sorry, nobody I know buys your lies. You lied last last week on the subject and you keep on lying, anybody with a brain understand this self evident truth.

Obviously I'll give up using any service you provide if any of these proposals are approved and if there'll be mobs with pitchforks and torches in Mountain View I'll manage to be there and give my humble contribution :D

Under Google/VZ's proposal, it would be perfectly acceptable for your bank to cut a deal with a wireless carrier as their 'exclusive provider of wireless banking services' and for them to moreover charge you a fee for the privilege (on top of your regular data fees and contractual lock-in). Don't like it? Too bad. Maybe Congress will take note of it in its periodic reviews and suggest some remediation. As if.

What a bunch of crap! Here comes the global google takeover. There was a time when I thought google was made of something respectable. Now the true colors have shown, google = we want your $$$$. Thanks for ruining the best thing that has come to small business! Way to lock out the little man! This is despicable! I spit on your shinny classy shoes!

Shame on you Google. Have you forgot you first commandment, DON'T BE EVIL?

this is the sort of thing i expect from Microsoft or Apple but you Google proposing this, i am completely disappointed in you actions. First you lied to the public when you said you were not talking to Verizon. Spin it how you want but its still a lie. Second, net neutrality is fundamental to the internet's ability to drive innovation and competition - it ensures the level playing field on which ideas succeed based on merit and value and not who or what paid for access. Are you telling us that you have run out of fresh ideas and innovations so you are now going to circle the wagons and protect yourself from competition?

I don't give a rat's a55 what the medium is over which the traffic is transmitted. The internet, is the internet, is the internet. Wireless or wired it doesn't matter. I've been feeling that google is evil for some time now. When they did what they did with Yelp, served to confirm it a bit, now this. This is the final nail in the Google coffin for me. I will be changing my home/search page, and I will never, _ever_ purchase a google supported phone or services. Screw Google, as far as I am concerned.

Bits is bits, that's all you need to regulate on the internet. You don't need a lot of tiers and special services. It all goes in one end and comes out the other no matter whether it's a bit for a movie or a bit for a spreadsheet. It's all the same to the machines. This proposal isn't needed and just obfuscates the simplicity of net neutrality.

a layered internet? yet still open to all? what bullsh*t. If there's one thing we are taught time and time again, it's that these guys are for only one thing - putting a price on everything. Google is crossing a line here

Sickening. I have read your proposal in full and done all relevant reading and research. I can only explain the outrageous wireless transparency copout in the light of profit. Google has sullied its moral past with this absurd decision, and stands to lose the trust of many. As a user and citizen, I am deeply disappointed.

This issue is every bit as important as freedom of speech. Comprising principals is a slippery slope and it only goes one way. Our founders knew that and you know that. At least have common decency to admit what you are doing rather than dress it up as helping people and innovation (it would actually do the opposite, which has been proven time and time again). Just like with China censorship you've shown yourself to be dishonest cowards.

-Does this mean that unlawful content will be unavailable/inhibited? -What will be defined as unlawful content? -Who will decide what is unlawful content? -How will unlawful content be regulated aside lawful content, as in will the an ISP block certain sites or ports, or perhaps the ISP/FCC will monitor communications??

These are serious questions which I would like answered BEFORE this is given vote in congress.

If the open internet is designed for the consumer, then let the consumer decide how it works. We are not children who need their parents to make decisions for them!!

This is B.S.... Neutrality is neutrality, there is no "compromise" about it. Networks, wired and not wired should be equal for all regardless if you are a major corporation or an entrepreneur with a new idea.

Google and Verizon, you disgusting pigs. You are already insanely wealthy. Why must you rob from the poor to give to the rich? This is about fair access to information and information is a right that all humans deserve. Finland progresses, America drives itself into the ground. To say this is a step in the right direction for net neutrality is like saying black is white. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing for any American or human is a tool of those companies, and is likely paid by one of these companies. If this deal happens I will destroy my HTC Evo and delete my google accounts. Coincidentally, google is planning on getting into the ISP business. What a surprise. Evil is as evil does.

I am cancelling my Verizon account, deleting my gmail account, and will use yahoo for searches from now on.I doubt that will get the attention of these giants...maybe if millions of us do?!"Don't be evil" indeed!!!!

The Additional Online Services section allows a two-tiered internet. A free and open internet that will languish with no new investments and new, closed and private internet that will cost more.

Why shouldn't wireless be included? When the internet first started it was free and open yet wired broadband succeeded so why I am I supposed to think that a free and open internet would be bad for wireless broadband?

A free and open internet allows everyone, know matter their size, to start a business on the internet. It is what brought us Google and YouTube and so many other great services. Why shouldn't those same free market principles apply to wireless internet?

By making wireless internet closed and private you prevent the small company who can't strike a mutli-million dollar deal with a wireless company from competing on a level playing field with multi-national, giant corporations.

This deal, if accepted by the FCC, would kill Net Neutrality and it spells the end of love-affair with Google.

I can only hope that organizations who fight for the public interest and against this kind of corporate depravity are up to the task of blocking this insanity - the scumbag lobbyists have been slithering around in washington for a long time on this one, so they are well versed and well funded to grease the palms of those in government who care little about the public interest.

I'm sure the arrogant a**holes at google are largely laughing at the public outrage, figuring they can handle the PR hit..but I personally have signed every petition I could find today, sent letters to my congressmen, have switched my default search engine away from google, and have begun to execute a plan (which was already in the works) to migrate all of my clients away from google apps.

There's only so much any of us can do as the little guy, but I implore that anyone reading this do whatever you can to cut google out of your life, and let the FCC know how you feel: http://bit.ly/bnIHlU

The intelligence insulting hubris of google's "statement" is a friggin joke, and since I see that Big Brother deleted the original post that pointed to an important summary of this topic, here it is again: http://huff.to/9wXiy6 ...get it while it's still here, and spread it around - people need to understand this issue, beyond the googizon spin...

It sounds like you are throwing us a bone on the neutrality thing. Why? Because you and Verizon (who is at its endgame for wired internet) knows the future is in wireless devices such as iPads/Android/etc. So, you're hedging your bets that this will happen so you CAN regulate content. Basically, you know the wired internet is going away, so you're setting yourself up all nice and fancy while we watch the wired internet die a slow death. Verizon benefits from the wireless content control, YOU benefit with your Android OS. Also, Verizon benefits from getting to create a new internet without pesky competition for its high bandwidth content. And YOU get to have a piece of that yummy "parallel internet" pie with your innovative services.

Today I, and millions of others, switched to Bing, and you know? It ain't half bad.

The proposals here should apply to wireless as well. The reason we are at this point requiring such legislation is because there were no "net neutrality" policies or regulations for wire-lines since the beginning. I don't see the reasoning behind not including wireless as part of the proposals. Wireless is the future, especially considering the explosive growth of google's android and apple's iphone. The smartphone growth is just starting and now would be a good time to put in these proposals for wireless as well.

Privacy, data protection, freedom of expression, universal accessibility, network neutrability, interoperability, use of format and open standards, free access to information and knowledge, right to innovation and a fair and competitive market and consumers safeguard.

Net Neutrality on a second-class Internet, while you get all the speed you want on a new pipe?! Thanks Google for disappointing all of us.We all knew that motto of "Do no evil" would not last under the pressure of more money. A sad day for the net...

I started using Google, email and other services, because of their position on China. Now I feel that their "grand designs" are not much different from Beijing. Perception is the name of the game. And based on that, I am done with Google. I am going to look for, and support, an alternative to Google... until...that's life...that 'alternative' goes down the same road as Google.

It is far past time for the internet to be regulated as a Public Utility. I know under current law this is not allowed so it must be time to change the law. All forms of internet including wireless must have the same regulations.

Google, you have screwed the pooch on this one and you will pay dearly.

You have lost me as a user and I will persuade 10 other people who will each persuade 10 more people and so on.

This is NOT good. Just read the proposed framework starting with Network Management....says it all. Hope everyone likes intensive traffic shaping/QOS (not to mention port blocking) on any site who's not on their diamond list.

“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of itsmany problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authorityover broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to putthe interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”- FCC -

Come on, Google. You guys have been my favorite company forever. I loved that you were all about an open, free Internet.

Wireless is a different market, but it's the first step in the wrong direction. If you start with this crap, how long before other companies step in to do the same to wired?

I'm a G1 user. My Google account is directly tied to my life. I've been with you the whole time. I beta tested Gmail, Wave, and Talk. This is the first time when I can strongly say you're doing something really, really wrong. Keep your PR image of being awesome and drop this. For the future of the Internet.